Population-level analysis of natural control of HIV infection in Zambia and South Africa: HPTN 071 (PopART).

INTRODUCTION: HIV controllers have low viral loads (VL) without antiretroviral treatment (ART). We evaluated viraemic control in a community-randomized trial conducted in Zambia and South Africa that evaluated the impact of a combination prevention intervention on HIV incidence (HPTN 071 [PopART]; 2013-2018). METHODS: VL and antiretroviral (ARV) drug testing were performed using plasma samples collected 2 years after enrolment for 4072 participants who were HIV positive at the start of the study intervention. ARV drug use was assessed using a qualitative laboratory assay that detects 22 ARV drugs in five drug classes. Participants were classified as non-controllers if they had a VL ≥2000 copies/ml with no ARV drugs detected at this visit. Additional VL and ARV drug testing was performed at a second annual study visit to confirm controller status. Participants were classified as controllers if they had VLs <2000 with no ARV drugs detected at both visits. Non-controllers who had ARV drugs detected at either visit were excluded from the analysis to minimize potential confounders associated with ARV drug access and uptake. RESULTS: The final cohort included 126 viraemic controllers and 766 non-controllers who had no ARV drugs detected. The prevalence of controllers among the 4072 persons assessed was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6%, 3.6%). This should be considered a minimum estimate, since high rates of ARV drug use in the parent study limited the ability to identify controllers. Among the 892 participants in the final cohort, controller status was associated with biological sex (female > male, p = 0.027). There was no significant association between controller status and age, study country or herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) status at study enrolment. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this report presents the first large-scale, population-level study evaluating the prevalence of viraemic control and associated factors in Africa. A key advantage of this study was that a biomedical assessment was used to assess ARV drug use (vs. self-reported data). This study identified a large cohort of HIV controllers and non-controllers not taking ARV drugs, providing a unique repository of longitudinal samples for additional research. This cohort may be useful for further studies investigating the mechanisms of virologic control.

Comprehensive profiling of pre-infection antibodies identifies HIV targets associated with viremic control and viral load.

Background: High HIV viral load (VL) is associated with increased transmission risk and faster disease progression. HIV controllers achieve viral suppression without antiretroviral (ARV) treatment. We evaluated viremic control in a community-randomized trial with >48,000 participants. Methods: A massively multiplexed antibody profiling system, VirScan, was used to quantify pre- and post-infection antibody reactivity to HIV peptides in 664 samples from 429 participants (13 controllers, 135 viremic non-controllers, 64 other non-controllers, 217 uninfected persons). Controllers had VLs <2,000 copies/mL with no ARV drugs detected at the first HIV-positive visit and one year later. Viremic non-controllers had VLs 2,000 copies/mL with no ARV drugs detected at the first HIV-positive visit. Other non-controllers had either ARV drugs detected at the first HIV-positive visit (n=47) or VLs <2,000 copies/mL with no ARV drugs detected at only one HIV-positive visit (n=17). Results: We identified pre-infection HIV antibody reactivities that correlated with post-infection VL. Pre-infection reactivity to an epitope in the HR2 domain of gp41 was associated with controller status and lower VL. Pre-infection reactivity to an epitope in the C2 domain of gp120 was associated with non-controller status and higher VL. Different patterns of antibody reactivity were observed over time for these two epitopes. Conclusion: These studies suggest that pre-infection HIV antibodies are associated with controller status and modulation of HIV VL. These findings may inform research on antibody-based interventions for HIV treatment.

Multiple Infection and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Superinfection Among Persons who Inject Drugs in Indonesia and Ukraine.

BACKGROUND: The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074 study evaluated an integrated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment and prevention strategy among persons who inject drugs (PWID) in Indonesia, Ukraine, and Vietnam. We previously detected multiple HIV infection in 3 of 7 (43%) of seroconverters with 3-8 HIV strains per person. In this report, we analyzed multiple HIV infection and HIV superinfection (SI) in the HPTN 074 cohort. METHODS: We analyzed samples from 70 participants in Indonesia and Ukraine who had viral load >400 copies/mL at enrollment and the final study visit (median follow-up, 2.5 years). HIV was characterized with Sanger sequencing, next-generation sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis. Additional methods were used to characterize a rare case of triple-variant SI. RESULTS: At enrollment, multiple infection was detected in only 3 of 58 (5.2%) participants with env sequence data. SI was detected in only 1 of 70 participants over 172.3 person-years of follow-up (SI incidence, 0.58/100 person-years [95% confidence interval, .015-3.2]). The SI case involved acquisition of 3 HIV strains with rapid selection of a strain with a single pol region cluster. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a large cohort of PWID suggest that intrahost viral selection and other factors may lead to underestimation of the frequency of multiple HIV infection and SI events.

Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in settings with universal antiretroviral treatment.

BACKGROUND: Multi-assay algorithms (MAAs) are used to estimate population-level HIV incidence and identify individuals with recent infection. Many MAAs use low viral load (VL) as a biomarker for long-term infection. This could impact incidence estimates in settings with high rates of early HIV treatment initiation. We evaluated the performance of two MAAs that do not include VL. METHODS: Samples were collected from 219 seroconverters (infected < 1 year) and 4376 non-seroconverters (infected > 1 year) in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial; 28.8% of seroconverter samples and 73.2% of non-seroconverter samples had VLs ≤ 400 copies/mL. Samples were tested with the Limiting Antigen Avidity assay (LAg) and JHU BioRad-Avidity assays. Antibody reactivity to two HIV peptides was measured using the MSD U-PLEX assay. Two MAAs were evaluated that do not include VL: a MAA that includes the LAg-Avidity assay and BioRad-Avidity assay (LAg + BR) and a MAA that includes the LAg-Avidity assay and two peptide biomarkers (LAg + PepPair). Performance of these MAAs was compared to a widely used MAA that includes LAg and VL (LAg + VL). RESULTS: The incidence estimate for LAg + VL (1.29%, 95% CI: 0.97-1.62) was close to the observed longitudinal incidence (1.34% 95% CI: 1.17-1.53). The incidence estimates for the other two MAAs were higher (LAg + BR: 2.56%, 95% CI 2.01-3.11; LAg + PepPair: 2.84%, 95% CI: 1.36-4.32). LAg + BR and LAg + PepPair also misclassified more individuals infected > 2 years as recently infected than LAg + VL (1.2% [42/3483 and 1.5% [51/3483], respectively, vs. 0.2% [6/3483]). LAg + BR classified more seroconverters as recently infected than LAg + VL or LAg + PepPair (80 vs. 58 and 50, respectively) and identified ~ 25% of virally suppressed seroconverters as recently infected. CONCLUSIONS: The LAg + VL MAA produced a cross-sectional incidence estimate that was closer to the longitudinal estimate than two MAAs that did not include VL. The LAg + BR MAA classified the greatest number of individual seroconverters as recently infected but had a higher false recent rate.

Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for identifying individuals with recent HIV infection: HPTN 071 (PopART).

BACKGROUND: Assays and multi-assay algorithms (MAAs) have been developed for population-level cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation. These algorithms use a combination of serologic and/or non-serologic biomarkers to assess the duration of infection. We evaluated the performance of four MAAs for individual-level recency assessments. METHODS: Samples were obtained from 220 seroconverters (infected <1 year) and 4,396 non-seroconverters (infected >1 year) enrolled in an HIV prevention trial (HPTN 071 [PopART]); 28.6% of the seroconverters and 73.4% of the non-seroconverters had HIV viral loads ≤400 copies/mL. Samples were tested with two laboratory-based assays (LAg-Avidity, JHU BioRad-Avidity) and a point-of-care assay (rapid LAg). The four MAAs included different combinations of these assays and HIV viral load. Seroconverters on antiretroviral treatment (ART) were identified using a qualitative multi-drug assay. RESULTS: The MAAs identified between 54 and 100 (25% to 46%) of the seroconverters as recently-infected. The false recent rate of the MAAs for infections >2 years duration ranged from 0.2%-1.3%. The MAAs classified different overlapping groups of individuals as recent vs. non-recent. Only 32 (15%) of the 220 seroconverters were classified as recent by all four MAAs. Viral suppression impacted the performance of the two LAg-based assays. LAg-Avidity assay values were also lower for seroconverters who were virally suppressed on ART compared to those with natural viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: The four MAAs evaluated varied in sensitivity and specificity for identifying persons infected <1 year as recently infected and classified different groups of seroconverters as recently infected. Sensitivity was low for all four MAAs. These performance issues should be considered if these methods are used for individual-level recency assessments.

HIV Antibody Profiles in HIV Controllers and Persons With Treatment-Induced Viral Suppression.

Introduction: Low HIV viral load is associated with delayed disease progression and reduced HIV transmission. HIV controllers suppress viral load to low levels in the absence of antiretroviral treatment (ART). We used an antibody profiling system, VirScan, to compare antibody reactivity and specificity in HIV controllers, non-controllers with treatment-induced viral suppression, and viremic non-controllers. Methods: The VirScan library contains 3,384 phage-displayed peptides spanning the HIV proteome. Antibody reactivity to these peptides was measured in plasma from a Discovery Cohort that included 13 elite controllers, 27 viremic controllers, 12 viremic non-controllers, and 21 non-controllers who were virally suppressed on ART. Antibody reactivity to selected peptides was also assessed in an independent cohort of 29 elite controllers and 37 non-controllers who were virally suppressed on ART (Validation Cohort) and in a longitudinal cohort of non-controllers. Results: In the Discovery Cohort, 62 peptides were preferentially targeted in HIV controllers compared to non-controllers who were virally suppressed on ART. These specificities were not significantly different when comparing controllers versus viremic non-controllers. Aggregate reactivity to these peptides was also high in elite controllers from the independent Validation Cohort. The 62 peptides formed seven clusters of homologous epitopes in env, gag, integrase, and vpu. Reactivity to one of these clusters located in gag p17 was inversely correlated with viral load set point in an independent cohort of non-controllers. Conclusions: Antibody reactivity was low in non-controllers suppressed on ART, but remained high in viremic controllers despite viral suppression. Antibodies in controllers and viremic non-controllers were directed against epitopes in diverse HIV proteins; higher reactivity against p17 peptides was associated with lower viral load set point. Further studies are needed to determine if these antibodies play a role in regulation of HIV viral load.

Antiretroviral drug use and HIV drug resistance in female sex workers in Tanzania and the Dominican Republic.

OBJECTIVE: Female sex workers (FSW) have increased risk of HIV infection. Antiretroviral treatment (ART) can improve HIV outcomes and prevent HIV transmission. We analyzed antiretroviral (ARV) drug use and HIV drug resistance among HIV-positive FSW in the Dominican Republic and Tanzania. METHODS: Plasma samples collected at study entry with viral loads >1,000 copies/mL were tested for ARV drugs and HIV drug resistance. ARV drug testing was performed using a qualitative assay that detects 22 ARV drugs in five classes. HIV genotyping was performed using the ViroSeq HIV-1 Genotyping System. Phylogenetic analyses were performed to determine HIV subtype and assess transmission clusters. RESULTS: Among 410 FSW, 144 (35.1%) had viral loads >1,000 copies/mL (DR: n = 50; Tanzania: n = 94). ARV drugs were detected in 36 (25.0%) of 144 samples. HIV genotyping results were obtained for 138 (95.8%) cases. No transmission clusters were observed in either country. HIV drug resistance was detected in 54 (39.1%) of 138 samples (31/35 [88.6%] with drugs detected; 23/103 [22.3%] without drugs detected); 29/138 (21.0%) had multi-class resistance (MCR). None with MCR had integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance. In eight cases, one or more ARV drug was detected without corresponding resistance mutations; those women were at risk of acquiring additional drug resistance. Using multivariate logistic regression, resistance was associated with ARV drug detection (p<0.001), self-reported ART (full adherence [p = 0.034]; partial adherence [p<0.001]), and duration of HIV infection (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, many women were on ART, but were not virally suppressed. High levels of HIV drug resistance, including MCR, were observed. Resistance was associated with detection of ARV drugs, self-report of ART with full or partial adherence, and duration of HIV infection. These findings highlight the need for better HIV care among FSW to improve their health, reduce HIV drug resistance, and decrease risk of transmission to others.